Its hardly just the OSI. Debian, redhat, FSF all think this license is bad.
> Their reasoning[0] for not considering it open source is that due to the requirement that all interfacing software (my words) must also be open source it restricts the possible fields the software can be used in. Reread that sentence! that's exactly the intent of the original GPL license, and follows directly from the philosophy of its progenitor.
When they say "all", they really mean "all". The exact phrase is: " including, without limitation, management software, user interfaces, application program interfaces, automation software, monitoring software, backup software, storage software and hosting software, all such that a user could run an instance of the service using the Service Source Code you make available."
IANAL, and its not 100% clear, but i think this would prevent for example, using redis on a windows server because windows is not open source. What if the hard drive you are using has non-free firmware? Is that allowed? I don't know, but the fact its even a question seems ridiculous here.
In essence, I think this clause is so burdensome, that nobody could realistically comply with it. Thus the license effective disallows that specific purpose. So I agree with OSI's assesment.
Its hardly just the OSI. Debian, redhat, FSF all think this license is bad.
> Their reasoning[0] for not considering it open source is that due to the requirement that all interfacing software (my words) must also be open source it restricts the possible fields the software can be used in. Reread that sentence! that's exactly the intent of the original GPL license, and follows directly from the philosophy of its progenitor.
When they say "all", they really mean "all". The exact phrase is: " including, without limitation, management software, user interfaces, application program interfaces, automation software, monitoring software, backup software, storage software and hosting software, all such that a user could run an instance of the service using the Service Source Code you make available."
IANAL, and its not 100% clear, but i think this would prevent for example, using redis on a windows server because windows is not open source. What if the hard drive you are using has non-free firmware? Is that allowed? I don't know, but the fact its even a question seems ridiculous here.
In essence, I think this clause is so burdensome, that nobody could realistically comply with it. Thus the license effective disallows that specific purpose. So I agree with OSI's assesment.